M/S Ajs Farm Owner S Welfare ... vs U.O.I. And 3 Ors.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3005 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 22.2.2021
 
Delivered on 25.2.2021
 

 
Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24899 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S Ajs Farm Owner S Welfare Association And 5 Ors.
 
Respondent :- U.O.I. And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,Alok Mohan Adhaulia,D.K. Kulshrestha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C. (2015/21592),Krishna Agrawal
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 01 of 2018.

Heard Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar' learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashutosh Srivastava for the review petitioner, Sri Krishna Agrawal for respondent No. 1, Sri Purnendu Kumar Singh for the Union-respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

This review petition has come to be preferred pursuant to the order dated 23 March 2018 passed by the Supreme Court on Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24696/2017. Review is sought of the final judgment rendered by the Court on the original writ petitions on 06 July 2017.

The order passed on the SLP indicates that the review petitioners contended that so far as their land is concerned, it could not have formed subject matter of acquisition since as per the communication of the Collector Bulandshahr dated 17 May 1955, it is evident that no Award had been made nor compensation paid in respect of 377 acres falling in village Nangli Sagpur. The aforesaid communication also notices the fact that the aforementioned village at that time fell within the boundaries of the district of Gurgaon situate in the State of Haryana. Noticing the aforesaid submission, the Supreme Court permitted the review petitioners to institute the present proceedings. Before proceeding further, it would also be appropriate to note that the review petitioners claim rights over land situate in village Nangli Sagpur alone.

In order to briefly recapitulate the salient events which led to the filing of the original writ petitions and fell for consideration before the Court, it would be pertinent to notice the following essential facts.

On 06 and 07 November 1950, two notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 [hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"] came to be promulgated for the acquisition of 4294.38 acres of land. The purpose of the acquisition for the Union Ministry of Defense was to develop a firing and bombing range for the Air Force. The petitions before the High Court stood confined to 482 acres of land falling in villages Nangli Nagla and Nangli Sagpur as comprised in the original notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 and referred to above. Out of the 482 acres, 105 acres was situate in village Nangli Nagla while 377 acres fell in village Nangli Sagpur. Possession of the acquired land was taken over by the Defense Estate Officer Agra on 23 November 1950 invoking the urgency clause in Section 17 of the Act. Upon possession being so taken, the name of the Military Estate Officer (Air Bombing Range) was also mutated in the relevant revenue record. Two possession certificates, both dated 23 November 1950, were also placed on the record of the writ proceedings establishing the handing over of possession of 482 acres of land situate in the aforementioned two villages to one K.N. Sinha the Military Estate Officer Agra Circle.

In order to evaluate the merits of the contentions advanced on the review petition it would also be apposite to extract the following findings as recorded in the judgment rendered on the batch of writ petitions and which were not assailed before us: -

"On the basis thereof, it appears that a major portion of the land in Uttar Pradesh, forming approximately 482 acres in 1950 was in the river Yamuna and, therefore, it was not likely to be farm land, or owned by any person or having any khasra numbers. In other words, the land was not owned by any individuals and, therefore, no names were appearing in the record of rights in 1950-51 when the land in Nagli Sagpur was acquired. Insofar as the land situated in village Nagli Nagla is concerned, in April 2015, the revenue office of Gautam Budh Nagar had undertaken demarcation on the basis of the revenue records showing clear title in favour of the Air Force authorities and describing it as an Air Bombing Range. This portion forms part of the northern boundary of the acquired land. Similarly, in case of Nagli Sagpur, the land situated therein has also been demarcated and it has been found that the petitioners are in possession of small pieces/farm lands over which they have developed farms and constructed farm houses. We also find substance in the submission made on behalf of Air Force/Defence Estates Officer, that they would place all these materials in support of their contentions in the eviction proceedings under the Act, 1971 or in the civil suits filed by the petitioners.

24. We, therefore, find force in the submission of learned ASG explaining as to why khasra numbers were not mentioned in the notification insofar as village Nagli Sagpur is concerned and as to why no award was made and possession taken from private persons. In other words, since the acquired land in village Nagli Sagpur was a part of the river, the question of passing any award as such did not arise and what was necessary was only the taking of its possession from the State authorities. Insofar as the land situated in village Nagli Nagla is concerned, it appears that the lands were owned by individuals and the proceedings of acquisition were initiated against them, which came to be concluded by the passing of an award and, as stated on affidavit, even compensation was paid to the landowners. We also find force in the submission of learned ASG, in respect of the land in village - Nagli Nagla, that if the claim of the petitioners was correct, then the landowners would not have kept quiet for decades and they would have certainly come forward to seek compensation. Counsel for the petitioners could not and did not place any materials on record to show as to who were the owners of land situated in village Nagli Nagla and Nagli Sagpur in 1950-51. It is also not in dispute that at no point of time, though those lands, according to the petitioners of village Nagli Nagla, were in possession of tenure holders, none of them ever approached either the concerned authorities or any court for either challenging the acquisition or seeking compensation of the acquired lands. This supports the contention urged on behalf of the Air Force/Defence Estates Officer, that the acquisition was complete in all respects, and therefore, none of the landowners made any grievance about it at any point of time.

....

31.7 The Supreme Court has, thus, settled the position of law, holding that anyone who deals with the land subsequent to a Section 4 notification being issued, does so, at his own peril. In other words, purchase of lands after publication of Section 4 notification in relation to such land is void against the State and, at the most, the purchaser may be a person interested in compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation. In the present case, the petitioners purchased the farm lands/plots between 2007 and 2012, whereas the acquisition was complete in 1950. No recorded landowner who held the land at the time of issuance of the acquisition notifications ever raised any grievance in respect of the acquisition or initiated a legal challenge to the same. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the petitioners being persons, who purchased lands subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, are not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the deeds executed in their favour are void against the State and the beneficiary of the acquisition. There has also been an abject failure of the part of the petitioners to establish or prove that the original landholder who possessed the land at the time of issuance of the notifications was deprived of compensation. The petitioners, therefore, at the most, can claim that they cannot be dispossessed without the due process of law being followed."

The writ petitions were ultimately dismissed with the Division Bench recording its conclusions as follows: -

"39. Thus, the petitioners herein as also those in the connected writ petitions, do not deserve any relief from this Court in the writ petitions filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following reasons:

(i) The petitioners being purchasers subsequent to the notifications under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition that was initiated and completed in the year 1950 itself.

(ii) The petitioners cannot be treated or termed as persons aggrieved so as to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In other words, the petitioners do not have locus to maintain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acquisition proceedings after about 60 years.

(iii) The petitioners being trespassers/encroachers over the land forming part of the land in question are not entitled for any relief, as prayed in the instant writ petitions.

(iv) The petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

(v) The land in question vested absolutely in the Government in 1950 itself free from all encumbrances and as a result thereof, interest, right and title of the original landowners to the land stood extinguished."

The sole submission which was addressed on the review petition rested on the communication of 17 May 1955 addressed by the Collector Bulandshahr to the Military Estate Officer Agra Circle. The review petitioners principally seek to derive advantage from the recitals appearing in this communication and more particularly to the extent that the Collector notes therein that the area of 377 acres of village Nangli Sagpur had neither been shown in the Award nor was compensation paid to interested persons since that village lay in the district of Gurgaon. In view of the aforesaid, it was contended that since no Award had ever been made, the land of the petitioners falling in village Nangla Sagpur could not be said to have been validly acquired.

The aforesaid submission proceeds in ignorance of the categorical findings as recorded in the original judgment which had found that the acquired land of village Nangli Sagpur was submerged and part of a river and that consequently the question of passing any Award or directing payment of compensation to individuals did not arise. It becomes pertinent to note that the original judgment had also found that the major portion of the acquired land was in the river Yamuna and thus was unlikely to be either farmland or land owned by any individual. It was in that background that it was further noted that no names of individuals appeared in the record of rights of village Nangli Sagpur in 1950-51. As noted above, these findings were neither questioned nor assailed by the review-petitioners before us.

The Court while dismissing the writ petitions originally had also noticed that none of the petitioners had been able to establish a right of ownership having been acquired prior to the issuance of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It had also noted that the petitioners had been unable to establish on the basis of any material that the acquired land of village Nangli Sagpur was in fact under the ownership of any particular individual and from whom the petitioners may have validly obtained title and interest. That position remained unchanged even at the stage of review with the review petitioners abjectly failing to adduce any evidence of the acquired land in village Nangli Sagpur being owned by an individual from whom they may have acquired a valid title.

In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no ground to grant the prayer for review. The review petition shall stand dismissed.

 
Order Date: - 25.2.2021
 
faraz
 
				
 
				(Yashwant Varma, J.)           (Manoj Misra, J.)